H E P O R T 


OF THE 


OMMITTEE ON MEMORIAL 


OF THE 


REPUBLICAN MEM BERS. 


MONTGOMERY, ALA.: 

W. W. SCREWS, STATE PRINTER 
1875 .' 


















« 



V 


REPORT 


OT THE 


Committee on Memorial 


OF THE 


REPUBLICAN MEMBERS. 


MONTGOMEKY, ALA.: 

W. W. SCREWS, STATE PRINTER. 
1875 . 








> 


/ 










0 
















JUN 23 1905 

D. of D, 










a 





<) 

V 1 * 







* % 
€ J 

>* 


« 


w 

* w O 

" * 


t # • o* > * 
% * « 

* ) -)♦ ) * 

• «• * « • 
* > 


< 

< 

4 

C 




A • 

* 0 

* e 

0 

♦ 

A 

< c 

« «4 

* 

J 

« «0 

tt 4) 

0 


t- i * 

• W 

** * 

* 4 • * 


V 

# 


t 


A 

a O v> 

r- - . 



*• 


4 » 


f 


* 




\ 6 

>* 


« • <* 

* 

» * 

U 


* 


0 

11 


r. 


< 




» 











REPORT 


Olf the Committee on the Memorial Addressed by the Republican Mem¬ 
bers of the General Assembly of Alabama to the Congress of the 
United States. 


Mr. President: 

Your committee to which was referred the resolution of 
inquiry with reference to the memorial alleged to have been 
signed by certain members of the General Assembly, address¬ 
ed to the President of the United States and the Republican 
members in both branches of Congress, which resolutions are 
hereto appended, have had the same under consideration, and 
beg leave to submit the following report: 

Under said resolution, it became the duty of your commit¬ 
tee, 1st. To ascertain whether the memorial published in 
the Advertiser of the 6th inst. was authentic ; and 2nd. Wheth¬ 
er the members whose names are appended thereto signed 
the original memorial. 

Under the powers conferred upon your committee, they 
held frequent sessions and examined witnesses under oath. 
All of the evidence is herewith submitted. 

It will be seen from the evidence of R. K. Boyd that the 
memorial published in the Advertiser of the 6th inst. is a 
correct copy of the original. Your committee then proceeded 
to ascertain whether the members of the Senate whose names 
are signed to the printed copy, signed the original memorial. 

Believing it would be proper, your committee called before 
them said Senators, except B. F. Royal, who refers to and 
endorses his statement made in open Senate, which, with the 
statement of the other Senators, is hereto appended, and is 



4 


made a part of this report. From these statements it will be 
seen that J. A. Farden, J. W. Dereen, W. G. M. Golson, J. 
W. Jones, A. H. Curtis, Lloyd Leftwich, J. K. Green, B. F, 
Royal and W. W. Glass signed the said memorial, or a paper 
to be appended to the same, and that Jacob Black and W. B- 
Harris did not sign the same. 

Your committee are required to report what ought to be 
the action of the Senate after their investigation. The act of 
an individual is innocent or criminal when viewed through the 
motive which prompted it, and looking at the evidence, your 
committee are of the opinion that the Senators who signed 
said memorial were imposed upon and deceived as to its con¬ 
tents by the designing and unscrupulous men who were its 
authors. 

Several of the measures complained of in the memorial and 
charged as violations of the Constitution by Democratic Sen¬ 
ators, were actually voted for by some of the signers of the 
memorial. For instance, J. A. Farden voted to reduce the 
salary of the Commissioner of Industrial Resources to $5, 
for the purpose of indirectly abolishing the office. Your com¬ 
mittee refer to the statements of Senators Golson, Greene and 
Leftwich, showing their support of measures complained of in 
the memoriah 

Your committee cannot condemn in too strong terms this 
attempt to stab the reputation of the Senate, and through them 
to assassinate the liberty of every citizen of Alabama. 

The statement of the prayer of the memorial is the demon¬ 
stration of its atrocity. The unscrupulous leaders who con¬ 
cocted this libel had but one object in view, and that was to 
procure the passage of an act by Congress authorizing the 
President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus at his own 
will and pleasure. To accomplish this they wilfully and 
maliciously perverted the truth, and not satisfied with their 
own turpitude in this transaction, they induced Senators in 
them own political faith to charge on a minority of this Sen¬ 
ate a wilful purpose to take away from the colored man his 
liberty, by enacting stringent laAvs against the crimes of lar¬ 
ceny and burglary, while the record as well as statements of 




Senators, show that these measures were supported by sever¬ 
al Republican Senators who signed said memorial. 

How laws punishing the crimes of larceny and bur¬ 
glary, applicable to all parties irrespective of race or color, 
could be construed to operate upon the Republican party 
more oppressively than the Democratic party, it is difficult to 
perceive, in the absence of an admission that there are more 
thieves and burglars in the Republican than in the Demo¬ 
cratic party. 

The statements made to your committee show that the 
memorial forwarded to Washington does not express the sen¬ 
timents of a single one of the Senators whose names appear 
attached thereto. As to some of them, a palpable fraud seems 
to have been committed in the use of their names. As to 
these Senators so situated with regard to the memorial, your 
committee feel that they are the victims of designing men, and 
are to be excused rather than condemned. As to those Sen¬ 
ators whose names were actually obtained on false pretenses, 
while they are not to be condemned for any malicious attempt 
to defame their fellow Senators, they are censurable for allow¬ 
ing the use of their names without first obtaining information 
of the contents of the paper signed by them. As private cit¬ 
izens their names would be of little value ; but when filling a 
public place, their names acquire an importance they have 
no right to disregard. 

Your committee cannot state with certainty who the authors 
of the memorial are ; but there is no doubt that one J. B. 
Bingham was the messenger who carried with him this weapon, 
that he believed and hoped would strike down the liberties 
of our people. 

Your committee beg leave to call attention to the statement 
in the memorial, that the citizens of Barbour county had put 
in jail or run away from the county, the witnesses who were 
examined before the Congressional Investigating Committee, 
and also to the evidence of Col. Shorter, a prominent citizen 
for thirty years past of said county, showing the falsity 
of this allegation. 

This memorial is unjustifiable in every respect in which it 


6 


can be regarded. It is false in its inferences and allegations. 
It is a libel and a slander, and its perpetrators should meet 
with the scorn and contempt of all honest men. 

Your committee recommend, in view of the disclaimer of 
the Senators whose names are appended to the memorial, and 
the circumstances under which they signed it, that no further 
action be had in the premises. 

J. B. Moore, 

W. G. Little, Jr. 

E. W. Martin, 

Committee, 



RESOLUTIONS OF SENATOR MOORE. 


Whereas, It was published in the Associated Press dis¬ 
patches a few days ago, and in the Advertiser of Montgomery, 
that George E. Spencer, claiming to be a Senator in the Con¬ 
gress of the United States, had introduced into the Senate of 
the United States a memorial, alleged to have been prepared 
by the Republican members of the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the Legislature of Alabama; and, 
whereas, said memorial, as reported, is a false, malicious and 
defamatory libel upon this Senate; and whereas, said libel, 
as alleged to have been perpetrated, is herewith submitted in 
printed form and asked to be read, purports to be signed by 
certain members of this body; and whereas, said libel can be 
construed in no other light than a cool, premeditated and ma¬ 
licious purpose on the part of its authors, by the most willful 
and malicious falsehood, to bring into disrepute the name and 
standing of members of this body, for honesty and integrity; 
and whereas, this Senate having a proper regard and respect 
for its members and for their vindication, deems it a duty to 
ascertain the authenticity of the document containing said 
libel, herewith submitted, and, also, to ascertain whether or 
not the members of this body, whose names purport to be 
signed to said document, did really sign the same, and if 
found to be authentic, and that members of this body did 
sign the same, to ascertain what, in that event, should be the 
action of the Senate; therefore, be it 

Resolved , That a committee of three members of this body 
be appointed by the presiding officer, whose duty it shall be 
to ascertain whether or not said document is authentic, and if 
so, which members, if any, of this body, signed the same, and 
what should be the action of this Senate in the premises. 

Be it further resolved , That said committee is hereby 
clothed with power to send for persons and papers, and ex¬ 
amine witnesses on oath. 

Resolved , 3d. That it shall be their duty to report their ac¬ 
tion, under these resolutions, as early as convenient. 



TESTIMONY. 


Montgomery, Ala., March 6,1875. 

The committee appointed under the following resolutions, 
(House resolutions), met at room 85, Exchange Hotel, on the 
evening of the 6th inst. 

Present—Messrs. Moore and Little. 

Hon. E. K. Boyd, being duly sworn, deposes and says, in 
answer to interrogatory 1. 

You will please look at what purports to be a copy of a 
memorial, signed by certain members of the Legislature, and 
state whether or not you ever read the original, of which this 
purports to be a copy, and whether or not said copy is cor¬ 
rect as it appears in the Montgomery Advertiser of this date, 
and append said copy as a part of your answer hereto, 
marked Exhibit “A.” ? 

Answer. I was in Washington on the day on which George 
E. Spencer submitted a memorial of the Eepublican members 
of the Alabama Legislature, or purporting to be signed by 
them, into the Senate of the United States. I immediately 
went to Senator Bayard and requested him to procure me the 
original memorial. He introduced me to the clerk of the 
Senate, or some official who had the memorial in charge, 
which I read, and I am prepared to state from an examina¬ 
tion of the copy in the Montgomery Advertiser , it is substan¬ 
tially a copy of the original submitted to the Seuate of the 
United States by George E. Spencer. I procured copies of 
said memorial as ordered printed by the Senate of the United 
States. The copy hereto appended and marked “Exhibit A,” 
is the copy printed in the Advertiser , and is a part of my an¬ 
swer. The copy marked “Exhibit B.” is a copy of the me- 



9 


morial as printed by order of the United States Senate, and 
is a part of my answer. The last named copy I procured 
from Senator Bayard. 

Interrogatory 2. Did you know how the memorial was 
conveyed to the United States Senate ? 

Answer. I w as informed by J. B. Bingham that he deliv¬ 
ered it to Spencer, and Spencer told me he had received it 
from Bingham. These conversations occurred in the United 
States Senate chamber within a few minutes after the memo¬ 
rial w T as presented. 

Interrogatory 3. Did you have any conversation with J. 
B. Bingham as to who was its author? 

Answer. I did. He said, when I charged him with being 
the author, that Coon and Bruce wrote it, he supposed. 

B. K. Boyd. 


Montgomery, March 8,1875. 

The committee met at room 35, Exchange Hotel, at 7£- 
o’clock p. m. 

Present—Messrs. Moore and Little. 

Senator Walton B. Harris, from the 15th Senatorial Dis¬ 
trict, comes before the committee and answers the following 
questions, as follows: 

Question. Have you read the memorial as it appeared in 
the Advertiser of the 6th inst. ? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Your name appears as a signer of said memo¬ 
rial. Please state whether you signed the same or the orig¬ 
inal, of which it purports to be a copy ? 

Answer. I never saw the memorial until the morning I 
arose in the Senate to a question of privilege. I never signed 
it. 

Question. Please state whether you authorized any one 
to sign your name to it ? 

Answer. I did not authorize any one so to do. 

I desire to make a statement: J. B. Bingham came to me 



10 


and presented a paper he said was a petition recommending 
him (Bingham) to friends in Washington as a Republican 
editor. I did not read the paper, but accepted his statement 
as true. If this was the memorial he presented to me he did 
me a great wrong and injustice. All the bills of a general 
character set forth in said memorial, relating to the punish¬ 
ment of crime, I voted for. I am a member of the Republi¬ 
can party. 

Walton B. Harbis. 


Montgomery, Ala., March 10, 1875. 

The Committee met at room 35, Exchange Hotel, at 5 
o’clock, p. m. 

Present—Messrs. Moore, Little and Martin. 

Senator A. H. Curtis, from the 22d District, appeared be¬ 
fore the Committee and made the following statement: 

“I went to the caucus where the memorial was being pre¬ 
pared. It was read about half through when I arrived there. 
The suggestion was made that it was necessary for all to sign 
it who desired to do so. I then authorized my name to be 
signed to it and left the room. Mr. Bingham was reading the 
memorial. I do not know who wrote it. It was impossible 
for me to know all that was in it, but I understood that the 
main purpose of the document was to give President Grant 
power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. I did not regard 
that the granting of this power was oppressive or crowding 
down upon the people. I do not understand that the memo¬ 
rial charges members of the Senate with violations of their 
oaths. I voted for the burglary bill contained in the memo¬ 
rial, with an amendment offered by myself. I have read the 
memorial. There are many things in the memorial that 
might have been worded differently. I approve the general 
objects of the memorial. I regard Gen. Grant as you regard 
Gov. Houston. I do not think he would improperly use his 
office to oppress the people or to advance his personal inter¬ 
ests. I cannot see anything wrong in it. I cannot see the 
wrong in it that others find. It is likely that I voted to re- 



11 


duce the pay of the Commissioner of Industrial Resources. 
I have not the objections to the memorial I thought I would 
have to it before I heard it read. I do not remember who 
was at the caucus, not members, besides Bingham. I knew 
nothing of the memorial before the caucus. I do not think it 
would be right for a member to vote for measures and then 
charge that they were passed by the Democrats. I do not 
think I would endorse that part of the memorial relating to 
the Montgomery local bills. I have been in no caucus since 
the resolutions were introduced. There has been one, but I 
did not attend. I do not endorse this part of the memorial: 
“That the Democratic party of Alabama has made, and is 
now making, a deliberate and persistent attempt, as shown by 
their leaders in the present General Assembly, to change the 
criminal laws of Alabama, so as to place the liberty and legal 
rights of the poor man, and especially of the poor colored 
man, who is generally a Republican in politics, in the power 
and control of the dominant race, who are, with few excep¬ 
tions, the landholders and Democratic in politics. 

“I do not endorse the memorial as you construe it, but as 
I understand it after reading it, and with my construction, I 
do endorse it.” 

A. H. Curtis. 


Montgomery, Ala., March 11,1875. 

The committee met at room 35, Exchange Hotel, at 5 
o’clock, p. m. 

Present—Messrs. Moore,' Martin and Little. 

Col. Eli S. Shorter, of Eufaula, being sworn, deposes and 
says: 

I live in Eufaula, Barbour county, in this State. I have 
lived there about thirty-eight years. I was examined before 
the Congressional Investigating Committee with reference to 
the Eufaula riot. White and colored witnesses were exam¬ 
ined before that committee, of both political parties. I knew 
all the witnesses who were examined. 

Have seen the statement made in the memorial to Congress 



12 


from the Republican members of the General Assembly, 
wherein it is charged that the colored witnesses examined 
before the Congressional Investigating Committee in Eufaula 
have all been sent to jail on frivolous and unfounded charges, 
or else run out of the county by the white league Democracy 
of Barbour. The charge is wholly false and unfounded. 
None of said witnesses have been arrested or sent to jail by 
the authorities of that county, since the Congressional Com¬ 
mittee were there. I am Chairman of the Democratic Exe¬ 
cutive Committee of Barbour county, and know that there 
has been no disposition manifested by the Democrats of that 
county to arrest or in any manner interfere with any of the 
Republican witnesses who were examined by the Congres¬ 
sional Committee. I know of no “White League” ever hav¬ 
ing been organized by the Democratic party in Barbour; 
there was a Club during the Gubernatorial campaign called a 
white man’s club. It was not a secret organization, its meet¬ 
ings always being held publicly. The constitution of the 
Club was published in the Eufaula papers. It was called 
“ White Man’s Club ” merely because of the race issue in¬ 
volved in the late campaign. I never knew of the existence 
of a “ White League ” in Barbour county. 

In reference to the charge that the Democratic leaders 
have hired out the county convicts in jail to various parties, 
I have to state that this charge is also false. Under a statute 
enacted by the Republican Legislature of 1868, men convict¬ 
ed of crime were either sentenced to the penitentiary or to 
hard labor for the county. A number of persons had been 
sentenced, after trial and conviction before the circuit court 
by juries composed of white and black men, to hard labor for 
the county. The commissioners court of the county finding 
no profitable employment for these convicts, and wishing to 
avoid the expense of supporting them, hired them out in a 
body at $2 per month, the parties hiring them agreeing to 
feed, clothe and guard them. 

Eli S. Shorter. 

Senator Lloyd Leftwich, of the 24th Senatorial District, 
makes the following statement: 


13 


I went to the caucus and was asked to sign the document 
to which already twenty-five names had been signed. I did 
not know the contents of the document and did not know it 
was a memorial until I saw it in the papers. I supposed it 
was a recommendation of some person for some office in the 
State. I have read the memorial. Some of the memorial 
might be endorsed and some of it might not. I do not en¬ 
dorse this charge in the memorial: “ That the Democratic 
party of Alabama has made and is now making a deliberate 
and persistent attempt, as shown by their leaders in the pres¬ 
ent General Assembly, to change the penal code and criminal 
laws of Alabama so as to place the liberty and legal rights of 
the poor man, and especially of the poor colored man, who is 
generally a Republican in politics, in the power and control 
of the dominant race, who are, with few exceptions, the land¬ 
holders and Democratic in politics.” 

I voted for the Sunrise bill, and introduced the first bill of 
this character introduced in the General Assembly. I also 
voted for the Grand Larceny bill, and the Burglary bill, all 
which are mentioned and complained of in the memorial. 

If I had known what the memorial contained, I might not 
have signed it; but being a Bepublican caucus, I thought it 
was all right. 

Lloyd Leftwich. 


Montgomery, Alabama, March 12, 1875. 

The Committee met at Room 35, Exchange Hotel. 

Present—Messrs. Moore, Little and Martin. 

Senator J. W. Dereen, of the 26th District, makes the fob 
lowing statement: I have read the Memorial of the Repub^ 
lican members of the General Assembly in the “Advertiser” 
of the 6th inst. The paper I signed was a single sheet of le¬ 
gal cap paper with several other signatures upon it, which I 
was told was to be attached to the memorial. I never saw 
the original, of which that purports to be a copy. I signed a 
document which purported to be a synopsis of the partisan 



14 


acts of the Legislature and copies of said acts purported to 
be attached thereto. I never read the acts or the copies ap¬ 
pended thereto. I signed that document as my individual 
opinion of the effect of the laws. I did not desire or intend 
to impugn the motives of any Senator who favored the meas¬ 
ures by my signature to said document. I signed it at th 
capitol. I was not at the caucus. 

I favored and supported the Grand Larceny bill as origin¬ 
ally passed by the Senate, but not the House amendments. 

Question: It is stated in the Memorial that the Demo¬ 
cratic party of Alabama has made and is now making a delib¬ 
erate and persistent attempt, as shown by their leaders in the 
present General Assembly, to change the penal code and 
criminal laws of Alabama so as to place the liberty and legal 
rights of the poor man, and especially of the poor colored 
man, who is generally a Republican in politics, in the power 
and control of the dominant race, who are, with few excep¬ 
tions, the landholders and Democratic in politics. Please 
state whether or not you endorse that sentiment in the me¬ 
morial ? 

Answer: I do not endorse it so far as the Senate is con¬ 
cerned. So far as the Democratic party of Alabama is con¬ 
cerned I cannot answer. 

I was told the object of the memorial was to secure such 
legislation as would protect the Republican party in Alabama. 
I did not know the memorial was intended to ask Congress 
to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, nor did I know this was 
in the Memorial when I signed it. I am a Republican. 

John W. Dereen. 


Senator W. G. M. Golson, of the 18th District, makes the 
following statement: 

I adopt the statement of Senator Dereen as my own, and 
add, that I understood the object of the memorial was to se¬ 
cure the passage by Congress of an election law. I except 
the statement of Senator Dereen as to the paper signed by 
him. The memorial was with the paper I signed. I asked 



15 


to read the memorial, but the party presenting it to me said 
he did not have time. The Senate was in session. Then it 
was explained to be what I have already explained I under¬ 
stood it was. I introduced the first bill to make it grand lar¬ 
ceny to steal any cow, horse, hog, sheep or goat, and I think 
I voted for all the penal laws embraced in the memorial, but 
thought the penalty too heavy except as to the Sunset bill. 
I introduced the bill mentioned at the instance of the white 
Republicans of my county, who are mostly farmers. I am a 
Republican. 

W. G. M. Golson. 


Senator W. W. Glass, from the 14th Senatorial District, 
makes the following statement: 

I have seen the memorial of the Republican members of 
the General Assembly. I signed it, but I did not know what 
was in it. It was brought to my desk in the Senate by Gen. 
Coon, who told me it was in regard to the condition of affairs 
in Alabama. I never saw the memorial, I only saw names. 
They may have been attached to the memorial. I never 
asked any questions and took no thought of it. I have never 
read the copy and don’t know now what is in it. I signed it 
just as any man would sign a petition not knowing what is 
in it. I am a Republican. 

W. W. Glass. 


Montgomery, March 13th, 1875. 

Committee met at Room No. 35, Exchange Hotel. 

Present—Messrs. Moore and Little. 

Senator Jacob Black, of the 17th Senatorial District, makes 
the following statement: 

“ I have seen the memorial to Congress purporting to be 
from the Republican members of the General Assembly, as 
published in the Montgomery Advertiser of the 6th. I never 
saw the original; I did not sign it; I was not in the city at 
the time it was gotten up. 


Jacob Black/ 




1G 

Senator J. W. Jones, of the 20th Senatorial District, makes 
the following statement: 

“ If I signed the memorial, I did not know it; but I signed 
a number of memorials without reading them, and if my name 
appeared, I must have signed it. I was not at the caucus that 
got up the memorial, and do not now know its contents ; I 
have never read it all. If there is anything wrong in the 
memorial, I am ready to apologize for it. I did not intend 
by signing the memorial to reflect on any Senator. I opposed 
and voted against the penal bills mentioned in the memorial. 

“ John W. Jones.” 


Senator James K. Greene, of the 23rd District, makes the 
following statement: 

“ I went up on the morning the memorial was signed to the 
capitol. That night I went to the caucus in accordance with 
a notice given at the capitol. The caucus was held at the 
Journal office. When I entered the room the signing was 
going on. I asked what it was. It was stated by J. B. 
Bingham a portion of my speech was in the memorial, and I 
ought to have been there to have heard it read. I told him 
if it was anything good, to hand me the pen, which he did, 
and I signed it. I never read it, or heard it read. After 
that D. E. Coon offered the resolution to send J. B. Bingham 
to Washington as a memorialist, and I signed that also. It 
was not said what he was going for. If I had been asked to 
sign more of the things in the memorial, I might have done 
so. I voted for some of the things in the memorial. I voted 
for the burglary bill. As one that has participatied in the 
legislature of the State for some years, I do not accuse the 
Democrats with doing wrong; it is only a difference of opin¬ 
ion. I had been in three different caucuses for the purpose 
of opposing the confirmation of Parsons and thought that was 
the object of the memorial, and was the reason I signed it. I 
should have stated this in the commencement of my statement 
I did not intend to impugn the motives of any Democratic Sen¬ 
ators. I was opposed to these memorials. Phillip Joseph 



17 


signed my name without authority to a call of a colored emi¬ 
gration convention. His object, as I believed, was to make 
money out of the negroes. He went to Washington pretend¬ 
ing that he was authorized by that convention to secure 
Parsons’ appointment. We held regular caucuses to secure 
Bruce’s nomination and to prevent Parsons’ confirmation, and 
it was to counteract Joseph’s statements that I signed the 
memorial. I never read the memorial through, then or 
since. 

James K. Green. 

Examination of W. Merriwether, who being sworn, depo¬ 
ses and says: 

1. Whether or not you are a Kepublican member of the 
General Assembly, in the House, from Wilcox county? 

Answer. I am. 

2. Have you seen a copy of the memorial of the Republican 
members of the General Assembly as it appeared in the Ad¬ 
vertiser ? 

Answer. I have. 

3. Question. Have you seen the original of which this pur¬ 
ports to be a copy ? 

Answer. I have seen it. 

4. Question. Have you ever read it ? 

Answer. I have not read it, but have heard it read, along 
at times as it was being got up. 

5. Who got up that memorial ? 

It was got up jointly by the leaders in the House, Gen. 
Goon and Mr. Bruce and others. When the Constitutional 
Convention bill was introduced the memorial was commenced. 
I had conversations with Gen. Bruce on the subject. I do 
not know who completed the memorial. It was finished while 
I was at home on leave. I never heard it read entire. 

6. What was the object of the memorial as you under¬ 
stood it ? 

Answer. It was to seek relief from the general government. 
I did not know what was the remedy sought for by the memo¬ 
rial. The minority, I considered, had been oppressed. 

2 


18 


7. Question. In whose hand-writing is the memorial? 

Answer. I do not know. 

8. Question. Do you know in whose hand-writing any por¬ 
tion of it is? 

Answer. I never noticed. 

9. Question. Have you ever told any one since the resolu¬ 
tion was introduced in the Senate you knew who wrote the 
memorial ? 

Answer. I do not remember. 

10. Question. Have you ever been told who wrote the 
memorial by any one ? 

Answer. Mitchell told me Bruce, Bingham, Coon, Wood 
and himself got up the memorial. 

11. Has there been a caucus of your party since the Senate 
resolution was introduced? 

Answer. I have been to none. I think there has been a 
caucus. 

12. Have you been told it was your duty to stand up to 
the memorial ? 

Answer. We have all agreed to stand up to what we have 
done, and in general conversation have said we would not 
take back. 

W. MerrIwether. 


Montgomery, Ala., March 15, 1875. 

The committee met at the usual place at 5, p. m. 

Present—Messrs. Moore, Martin and Little. 

Senator J. A. Farden, of the 19th District, makes the follow¬ 
ing statement: 

1. Have you read the memorial that appeared in the Adver¬ 
tiser of the 6th, purporting to be signed by the Bepublican 
members of the General Assembly ? 

Answer. I read it that day—on the 6th. 

2. State whether you signed the original of which that pur¬ 
ports to be a copy ? 

Answer. I signed a paper one night at a Bepublican cau¬ 
cus room. By invitation I attended a caucus of the Bepub- 



19 


lican members of the Legislature, held at that room. It was ten 
o’clock at night when I entered the room, and I was suffering 
with a severe cough. I remained about five minutes; when I 
arose to go, some one remarked, “ has every one in the room 
signed this petition.” Another remarked, “all, I believe, except 
Col. Farden.” Some one else asked me if I would sign it. I 
asked what it was, and it was shown me. Finding it to be a doc¬ 
ument of several pages, I remarked I had not time to read it 
then, but would do so afterwards. I was then told by some 
one that it was a memorial to Congress protesting against 
some of the acts of the Legislature as being partizan. I re^ 
marked that my record in the Senate showed that I had 
opposed several measures because I thought them partizan. 
It was then said that it was desirable to send it off the next 
day, and that I had better sign it there. I replied, I have 
confidence enough in you, gentlemen, to believe you would 
not ask me to sign anything that is wrong, and as lam suffer¬ 
ing with my cough, from the smoke in the room, I must leave, 
and therefore I will sign it, which I did. 

3. Did you know what it contained, or had you read the 
memorial or heard it read before you signed it ? 

Answer, I knew nothing of what it contained, except what 
was represented to me as above stated, and had not read or 
heard it read. 

4. In whose handwriting was the memorial ? 

Answer. I do not know. 

5. Do you know who prepared the document ? 

Answer. I do not. I have stated all that I know about 
it. 

State whether or not you did not offer an amendment to re¬ 
duce the salary of the Commissioner of Industrial Resources 
to five dollars? 

“I did. I wanted to abolish the office indirectly, so no one 
else would take it. 

“While I differed with Senators in regard to the measures 
referred to, I did not, or do not pretend to impugn the mo¬ 
tives of Senators who- favored them.” 


J. A. Farden. 


20 


Senator B. F. Royal, of the 16th District, having failed to 
appear before the committee, they here insert his statement 
made in the Senate, while in session, as reported by the cor¬ 
respondent of the Mobile Register , and as it is remembered 
by the members of the committee: 

“I have never seen the memorial in the newspapers, or the 
original memorial. I never attended a caucus of my party. 
I was as ignorant of the contents of the memorial as an un¬ 
born babe. J. B. Bingham came to me in the Senate cham¬ 
ber and asked me to sign a paper; he said it was concerning 
the appointment of Arthur Bingham as Postmaster at Mont¬ 
gomery, and the appointment of Gen. Bruce as U. S. District 
Judge. I told him if that was it to sign my name. I never 
knew it was anything to oppress or crush the people of Ala¬ 
bama, or I would never have signed it.” 


LIBEL. 


Exhibit 4 ‘A.” 

The undersigned, Republican members of the General As¬ 
sembly of Alabama, having unusual opportunities to discover 
the ulterior purposes of the Democratic leaders in this State, 
and being impressed with the firm conviction that wise and 
efficient means are now imperiously demanded by the Repub¬ 
lican ascendancy, beg leave to represent to President Grant, 
and the Republican members from Alabama in both branches 
of the Congress of the United States as follows : 

I. CHANGES IN THE PENAL CODE. 

That the Democratic party of Alabama has made, and is 
now making, a deliberate and persistent attempt, as shown 
by their leaders in the present General Assembly, to change 
the penal code and criminal laws of Alabama so as to place 
the liberty and equal rights of the poor man, and especially 
of the poor colored man, who is generally a Republican in 
politics, in the power and control of the dominant race, who 
are, with few r exceptions, the landholders, and Democratic in 
politics. Hitherto the Democratic party has sought to con¬ 
trol the labor as well as suffrage of the colored race by intim¬ 
idation and force. They have never abandoned that policy. 
On the contrary, these means, supplemented by violence and 
frauds, were more strikingly brought to bear at the late elec¬ 
tion in Alabama. Having by these violent means secured a 
temporary ascendency, the leaders of that party in the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly seem now to be determined to secure perma¬ 
nent and more absolute control by and under the forms of 
laws, to be passed at this and subsequent sessions of the 
General Assembly. To this end all their legislative endeav¬ 
ors are now put forth. Already it has been proposed, and 
bills have actually been introduced and urged in both bodies 
of the General Assembly, which propose to raise the grade 



22 


of petty crimes and misdemeanors, and to make many of them 
felonies. And, as if this were not enough, they would repress 
and curtail the retail trade of the commonwealth by laws 
utterly hostile to the spirit and letter of the laws of free States 
and free labor communities. That these allegations are not 
unfounded, permit us to specify: 

1. A bill has already been passed in the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, and will doubtless meet with equal favor in the 
Senate, to change the law of larceny so as to make the steal¬ 
ing of a “horse, mule, cow or animal of the cow kind, sheep, 
goat, or hog, or any outstanding crops of corn or cotton,” 
without reference to the value of the animal or article stolen, 
grand larceny, and the person convicted may be punished by 
imprisonment in the penitentiary for from two to twenty 
years—a punishment utterly disproportioned to the crime of 
stealing a hog or goat, and an innovation without parallel or 
precedent upon the penal code of civilized countries. 

2. Another bill of the same general sort relates to burglary. 
It has already passed the Senate, and will doubtless pass the 
House. It proposes to change the law of burglary so as to 
make the breaking and entry into any inclosure within the 
curtilage of a dwelling house, with intent to steal or commit 
a felony, burglary, and on conviction the offender shall be 
punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than 
two nor more than twenty years. Thus a person breaking or 
entering into an enclosed lot or garden, protected only by a 
fence, with intent to steal, can be convicted of the high crime 
of burglary. For generations burglary has been confined to 
the breaking and entry into dwellings or buildings with intent 
to commit a felony. But, by the introduction of this new r 
element into the law, breaking or entering into an enclosure, 
which was formerly a crime of much lower grade, is now mag¬ 
nified into burglary, and the punishment affixed by confine¬ 
ment in the penitentiary from two to twenty years. Twenty 
years’ punishment for breaking into a cabbage or potato patch 
with intent to steal is certainly beyond reason, and violative 
of the well settled rules and principles of law. 

3. A bill is now pending to make it a crime to sell or buy 
agricultural products, such as corn, cotton, peas and potatoes, 
between the hours of sunset and sunrise. Poor people—and 
our colored population are mostly poor, and dependent upon 
their daily labor for a living—are compelled to do their trad¬ 
ing in the evening, and one of the effects of this measure will 
be to compel the laborer to get all his supplies from the plan¬ 
ter with whom he is employed, thus compelling the laborer to 
get supplies at the planter’s own terms, which are usually 


23 


from 100 to 200 per cent, over the prices at which they may 
be secured in market with fair competition. 

4. This bill, with another which proposes to make it un¬ 
lawful for any person to sell or buy agricultural products, 
without first obtaining the written permission of the owners 
of the lands whereon the produce w r as growu, makes the near¬ 
est possible approach to the restrictions which existed all 
over the South under the institution of slavery. '1 he effect 
of these bills will be to put it beyond the power of the poor 
laborer to market or sell anything which his labor has pro¬ 
duced, as well as to prevent any one from buying the same 
from him. Thus the poor man and his labor will be put in 
the absolute control of the Democratic land holders of Ala¬ 
bama. 

5. It is proposed to enact a law which shall require defend¬ 
ants who are convicted in criminal cases under municipal 
and county corporations, and who shall fail to pay their fines 
and costs, to work out the same at hard labor for the county 
at the rate of not less than two days for every dollar of said 
fines and costs. Not only that, but under existing laws, the 
White -League Democracy of Barbour county, where the col¬ 
ored witnesses examined before the Congressional Committee, 
it is reported, have all been sent to jail on frivolous and un¬ 
founded charges, or else run out of the county. The Demo¬ 
cratic leaders have actually “hired out the county convicts in 
jail to various planters,” as stated by the “Eufaula Times,” 
at an average of about two dollars per month until the end 
of the various terms for which they were sentenced. There 
is much more of the same sort of legislation proposed, the 
drift and tendency of all which is to establish a system of 
compulsory labor and peonage utterly inconsistent with the 
genius and spirit of free-labor States and institutions. 

These measures are conceived in direct hostility to the re¬ 
construction acts of Congress, and are violative as well of the 
constitutional amendments of the Constitution under which 
the State of Alabama was re-admitted into the Union; and 
yet they are but specimen bricks of the sort of illiberal and 
unconstitutional legislation which we shall speedily see spread 
all over our statute-books, unless some means can be devised 
to check their ulterior and unpatriotic designs. These changes 
in our penal code not only raise the grade of crime, but they 
afford the ready means by which the great mass of our col¬ 
ored population are to be both harassed and persecuted. 
The white population in the black belt in our State are most 
of them Democrats in politics; and it is nothing but true to 
say that too many of them belong to the drinking and reck- 


24 


less class, who have little regard for law and order, and are 
filled with prejudice against the colored population as citizens 
entitled to equal rights and privileges. Hence, with such a 
penal code, it is not difficult to perceive how this class will, 
on one pretext or another, bj and under the forms of law, 
persecute and oppress the poor and illiterate of our popula¬ 
tion. Whenever the colored man is indisposed to submit to 
the dictation of this class, or seeks to exercise his rights as a 
citizen and voter in an independent manner, these men will 
be apt to trump up some charge against him, and, with ignor¬ 
ant or corrupt magistrates, can hurry him off to jail. Indeed, 
this has been done in numerous instances already, the prose¬ 
cutor often becoming the bail or security for the accused, and 
in that way securing his labor for a trifling consideration, 
while the accused is little better than a slave, his liberty be¬ 
ing at the option of his bondsman. This is no imaginary 
case. On the contrary, it is just what has often been seen in 
practical operation; by means of unfounded charges and cor¬ 
rupt or ignorant magistrates, the liberty of the citizen is taken 
away, and he is at the same time robbed of the proceeds of 
his labor, and this outrage is pretended to be perpetrated 
under the forms of law. By the changes proposed in our 
criminal laws, the means of vexing and harassing the colored 
people is greatly increased, and the opportunity for robbing 
them of their labor enhanced a hundred fold. When, in con¬ 
nection with this legislation, we consider the natural timidity 
of the colored citizens, you will be at no loss to discern how 
near we are approaching a condition of society where a large 
class of our citizens will be at the mercy of the dominant class, 
and the labor of the country under their control, and that, too, 
under color of and under the forms of law. 

We need not remind you how such a policy is at variance 
with all the results intended to be wrought out by the war for 
the preservation of the Union. That was a conflict of ideas 
as well as of armies. The issue was free-labor institutions 
and principles against slave-labor institutions and principles. 
It was a conflict between these two types of civilization. And 
yet, while the slave-labor system did not triumph at Appo¬ 
mattox, they are thus seen to be practically triumphant in 
Alabama. After the war came reconstruction, by which the 
free-labor type of civilization was believed to have been firm¬ 
ly established throughout the entire South. It was especial¬ 
ly designed to supplant and displace that which had formerly 
prevailed, and not to form any alliance therewith. But no 
sooner does the Democratic party accede to power in Ala¬ 
bama than its leaders propose to forget not only all that has 


25 


been clone and promised, but to undo, as fast as possible, that 
which was wrought out by the war, and all that has since 
been promised, in connection therewith. It would practically 
reverse the verdict wrought out at the point of the bayonet, 
reverse the policy of reconstruction, and strike out of exist¬ 
ence not only our free-State constitutions, but the laws made 
in pursuance thereof, thus violating the fundamental condi¬ 
tions of the admission of Alabama into the Union. If this is 
allowed to be done, it is not difficult to perceive that the war 
for the Union was a grand mistake, and the blood and treas¬ 
ure of the people spent in vain. 

II. PARTISAN LEGISLATION. 

But the change in the penal code, designed to afflict the 
colored population, is not more atrocious than the partisan 
legislation already enacted, while that which is most con¬ 
sciously unjust we are led to believe will be reserved for con¬ 
sideration after Congress shall have adjourned. 

Let us here bring to your notice a few only of their more 
flagrantly partisan and unjust acts. 

1. Three Republican Representatives were elected to the 
House of Representatives from Barbour county. That coun¬ 
ty is notoriously Republican in politics, but at Eufaula, on 
election day, Republicans were shot down and killed, and 
hundreds thus driven from the polls; while at Spring Hill, in 
the same county, a band of White League Democrats rushed 
in upon the United States Supervisor of the election, with the 
other officers then engaged in counting the vote, destroying 
the ballots and poll-lists, and seeking to kill the United States 
Supervisor, failing in which, they killed his son, a bright boy 
of tender years, then clinging to his father. In this way the 
Republican majority was decreased several hundred votes. 
Nevertheless, the Republican members got the certificate of 
return awarded by the Secretary of State; and, after they 
had been in possession of their seats for several weeks, they 
were without a contest, as provided by law, and in violation 
of all law and precedent, ousted, and their seats awarded to 
the Democratic candidates, who never had a certificate of elec¬ 
tion, and never obtained a majority at the polls. 

2. The city court of Eufaula, when presided over by a Re¬ 
publican, was sought to be abolished by petition of nearly 
every Democrat in that community. The Democratic Senate 
actually passed a bill to abolish the court, but it failed in the 
Republican House at the last session. A similar movement 
for its abolition was inaugurated at the beginning of this ses- 


26 


sion, because a Republican had again been elected. But that 
Republican resigned his position through fear of his life if he 
continued to live in that White League community, and the 
Governor has appointed as his successor one of the original 
movers for the abolition of that court! Only a few hours be¬ 
fore the riot at Spring Hill, a Democratic candidate for -an 
important office in that county went up to that precinct on a 
hand car, and remarked, in the presence of the United States 
Supervisor, that the vote there would change the result, and 
that he would give a thousand dollars for the ballot-box at 
that precinct! And now the same Democrats, who were will¬ 
ing to give a thousand dollars for the ballot-box at Spring 
Hill, and who doubtless inaugurated the Spring Hill riot, 
which resulted in the murder of young Keils, (when it has 
been confessed that the father was intended to be killed,) 
now hold all the county offices in Barbour county, as well as 
the position of judge of the city court of Eufaula, a court 
which he and his Democratic associates sought to have abol¬ 
ished when held by a Republican, and this fact may account 
for the. arraignment and conviction of Republican witnesses 
before the Alabama Congressional Committee at that place. 

3. A bill has passed both branches of the General Assem¬ 
bly to reduce the salary of the Republican Commissioner of 
Industrial Resources of the State from $2;500 to $500 per an¬ 
num. The Republican incumbent was elected in 1872 for 
four years, by a large majority. The office is one which, un¬ 
der the constitution, can no more be abolished than that of 
Governor itself; and the declared object in reducing his sal¬ 
ary to $500, and requiring him to live at the capital, was 
openly confessed to be to legislate him out of office. They 
say they know that no man can live on the salary, and they 
expect him to resign that a Democrat may be appointed. 
Thus, to get a Republican out of office, they confess to a 
practical violation of the constitution by doing that indirectly 
which, they confess, they have no right to do directly. 

4. The law assigning certain causes for the removal of reg¬ 
isters in chancery has been so changed as to enable Demo¬ 
cratic Chancellors to remove Republican Registers in Chan¬ 
cery. The necessity for this was the removal of a register 
who, as a United States Commissioner, appointed United 
States Supervisors in several counties in South and West Ala¬ 
bama for the election last November. 

5. Chancellor Dillard was elected chancellor in the western 
district last November by a very large majority. His resi¬ 
dence is in Marengo, one of the counties in that division. 
At the November election he acted as United States Super- 


27 


visor in that county. Recently, on the petition of four Dem¬ 
ocratic lawyers, living at Demopolis, a bill was introduced and 
passed the House, and is now pending in the Senate, to re¬ 
move the county of Marengo out of Chancellor Dillard’s di¬ 
vision, thus seeking to remove the chancellor from office by 
separating, his home from the other counties of his division; 
and this in a county wherein Chancellor Dillard received 
nearly 2,000 majority, none of whom, except the four indi¬ 
viduals referred to, desire any such change, but, on the con¬ 
trary, a majority of the bar of Demopolis refused to join in 
the movement against him. 

6. Bills are now pending in the General Assembly to abol¬ 
ish the offices of the board of county commissioners for 
Montgomery and other Republican counties of the State, and 
substitute boards of revenue, to be appointed by the Gover¬ 
nor ; to abolish the office of County Treasurer, and to abolish 
the office of Tax Collector, and these measures are understood 
to be urged by the Democratic State and County Executive 
Committees. 

7. A bill is now pending in the General Assembly which 
has special reference to the present Tax Collector of Mont¬ 
gomery county. For over a year past, Democracy has waged 
against him the fiercest opposition, and failing at every point, 
they have now sought his overthrow by the passage of a bill 
which requires him to give a bond of $220,000, when, under 
the laws in existence, he is not allowed to retain in his hands, 
at any one time, over $10,000. A party malignity never made 
a more unseemingly exhibition. 

8. The criminal court of Dallas county has been abolished 
because the judge of that tribunal was a colored Republican. 
It is not pretended that he was not competent. He was 
elected by an overwhelming majority of the people, and he 
had been for five years, previous to his election, clerk of the 
criminal court. He had held four terms of his court, and 
discharged the duties devolved upon the office with so much 
ability and impartiality that he could not be constitutionally 
removed. But, without petition, a bill was introduced for the 
abolishing of the court, pending which he was informed, by 
certain Democratic lawyers, that if he would resign the court 
w r ould be preserved and a Democratic judge appointed by the 
Governor in his place. He refused to resign an office to 
which he had been overwhelmingly elected, and the bill legis¬ 
lating him out of office, by the abolition of the court, finally 
passed on the 5th instant. The following protest of thirty- 
one members of the General Assembly against this high- 


28 


handed act has been entered upon the journal of the House 
of Representatives: 

We, the undersigned, members of the General Assembly, 
do hereby solemnly protest against the act of the majority 
of this General Assembly in abolishing the criminal court of 
Dallas county. 

1. Because we believe that the said act is in violation of 
both the letter and spirit of the constitution of our State. 

2. Because we believe that the only reason for the aboli¬ 
tion of said court are color and the political convictions of 
the judge. 

3. Because the judge of said court was elected by the peo¬ 
ple, and to legislate men out of offices to which they have 
been elected by the free choice of the people, is subversive of 
the principle of popular government, substitutes the will of 
the minority for that of the majority , and tends to revolution 
and anarchy. 

4. Because we believe that the will of the people, as ex¬ 
pressed at the ballot-box, cannot be defeated by the Legisla- 
ture without danger to the liberties of the people. 

5. Because we believe that any interference of the Legis¬ 
lature with the judicial departments of the State makes the 
judiciary dependent on the political complexion of the Legis¬ 
lature. 

9. A joint resolution to appoint a joint committee from 
both branches of the General Assembly, to sit as a commis¬ 
sion during the summer, and invested with full power to send 
for persons and papers for the purpose of investigating the 
election of Hon. George E. Spencer to the Senate of the Uni¬ 
ted States, has already passed the Senate, and will doubtless 
pass the House of Representatives. And that, too, notwith¬ 
standing the journals of both Houses of the last General 
Assembly give the fullest information of the said election; 
aed in the face of the further fact, that in a contest before the 
United States Senate, which alone is the judge of the elec¬ 
tion and qualification of its members, the election of the said 
Spencer liad been declared legal and regular, as had already 
been substantially decided by the Supreme Court of Ala¬ 
bama. 

10. Bills have passed the Senate, and are now pending in 
the House, whose sole object is to make it impossible for Re¬ 
publicans who shall be elected or appointed to any office to 
give satisfactory official bonds for a faithful discharge of 
duties. It is now a party tenet of Democracy not to go upon 
any Republican’s official bond. To do so is declared, as to 
all who do it, an act of direct hostility to the Democratic 


29 


patty. In consequence of this partisan ostracism* many 
Republicans elected to offices in the several counties have 
had to surrender to Democrats appointed by the Governor. 
But, as if that were not enough, the bill now pending pro¬ 
poses to make the bonds for county officers so high that Re¬ 
publicans cannot give them. It will be seen by a copy of the 
bill hereto attached (A) that Democracy proposes to make the 
bonds, of the Judge of Probate of Montgomery county 
$23,000, while the present law only requires $10,000; that the 
tax collector’s bond is to be $55,000, while the present law 
only requires $10,000; that the sheriff’s bond is to be $55,- 
000, while the present law only requires $10,000; that the 
treasurer’s bond is to be $55,000, while the present law only 
requires $10,000 ; that the tax assessor’s bond is to be $10,- 
000, while the present law only requires $2,000. But these 
bonds are not only greatly enlarged, but the securities upon 
all bonds are all to be residents of the county in which the 
bonds are given; a Republican elected in Lowndes, not being 
allowed to get security in Montgomery. Not only that, but 
the property of all securities is to be in the county in which 
the bond is given, and the amount of the security is made a 
lien upon the property to the amount thereof. A man own¬ 
ing $10,000 worth of property beyond the amount exempted 
by law, and who is security for an officer to the amount of 
$10,000, cannot, under the law, become security for any one 
else, because the fact of security for $10,000 is to be regarded 
as a legal subsisting liability upon said property. Then no 
officer can, under any circumstances, become a surety for 
another. No United States bonded official can become secu¬ 
rity upon any bond, and all debts, liens and mortgages, are to 
be deducted from the value of the property of any one who 
becomes security, and he is to swear that he is worth the 
amount after paying all debts of any kind, including amount 
of security of any other bond as a debt. Under the provis¬ 
ions of this law, there are not over fifty persons in Mont¬ 
gomery county who could go upon a bond for $1,000; not 
over twenty-five who could go upon a bond for $10,000, and 
not over five who can go upon a bond for $20,000, and, of 
course, other counties with less property, would possess a 
still less number eligible as official bondsmen. The effect of 
the law is, not only to prevent Republicans from making offi¬ 
cial bonds, but also to create an oligarchy of a few wealthy 
men, in each county, who will thus absolutely control the 
county officers and thus defeat the will of the people as ex¬ 
pressed at the polls. 

11. A bill has passed the Senate, and is now pending in 


30 


the House, to set aside the present fair election law, passed 
as a compromise between both parties by the last General 
Assembly, and to substitute in its stead a law to prevent a 
free and fair vote in future elections in this. State. Another 
object aimed at is to separate elections for State and Federal 
offices, so as to prevent the supervision of Federal Super¬ 
visors, as provided by acts of Congress, and thus the more 
readily enable them to continue their vile practice of intimi¬ 
dation, fraud and violence, in all our future State elections. 
We subjoin a copy of this proposed law for your perusal, (B.) 

12. A bill has been introduced into both branches of the 
General Assembly to prescribe the mode of registration for 
voters. The principal object seems to be to prevent colored 
voters, who are busy with their work and seldom read news¬ 
papers, from registering in their respective beats, within the 
time specified, failing to do which they lose their right of suf¬ 
frage. We subjoin a copy of this artfully contrived means of 
suppressing Republican votes, (C.) 

13. Another measure of hostility to the Republicans is en¬ 
titled “An act in relation to the formation of grand and petit 
juries,” but, on carefully reading it, you will find that it 
should be entitled “A bill to prevent any Republican, but 
especially colored Republicans, from sitting on either the 
grand or petit jury.” We append hereto a copy of this Dem¬ 
ocratic atrocity, (D.) 

14. Another Democratic atrocity is the bill (which has pas¬ 
sed both branches of the General Assembly) to re-district the 
State into eight congressional districts. We attach hereto a 
map of the several districts as apportioned by this Democratic 
gerrymander. By examining it you will observe that the law 
of Congress, under which the apportionment was made, was ut¬ 
terly disregarded. The law of Congress says that Represen¬ 
tatives “ shall be elected by districts composed of contiguous 
territory, and containing, as nearly as practicable, an equal 
number of inhabitants.” But, instead, they have disregarded 
the law, and made the districts so unequal in population and 
so destitute of all “contiguity” or convenience that Senator 
Martin, of Conecuh, himself a Democrat, in discussing the 
bill in the Senate, was forced to denounce it as “ unfair, unjust, 
and illegal.” That this language only expresses the simple, 
unadorned truth, will be made fully apparent by a perusal of 
the map, and figures in connection therewith, prepared by 
Mr. Mitchell, a Representative of Montgomery, to which fre¬ 
quent reference was made in the discussion of the bill in the 
House. The startling fact which this Democratic re-district¬ 
ing disclose, is that the large Republican vote in Alabama has 


31 


been practicably subordinated to the will of the Democratic 
majority. At the last election in Alabama the Republican 
vote on the Congressional ticket was 94,229 ; the Democratic 
vote was 107,435. Yet under this bill the Republicans, with 
94,229 votes, are only allowed one Congressman, while the 
Democracy, with 107,435 votes, are given seven Conressmen. 
The Democrats professed to be afraid, while this bill was 
pending in the House, of Congressional interference; but if 
there ever was such an intention the opportunity is not frus¬ 
trated by this “unfair, unjust and illegal ” Democratic meas¬ 
ure. 

15. Already a bill has been introduced into both branches 
of the General Assembly which provides for the calling of a 
constitutional convention. By this means the Democracy 
hope to upturn our present free Constitution, and to perfect 
their schemes looking to continued ascendency in Alabama. 
For that purpose, they have so shaped the apportionment of 
representation in the proposed convention as to give them a 
majority therein, if the people shall vote in favor of a Consti¬ 
tution when submitted. To that end no less than nine dele¬ 
gates are taken from Republican counties and given to Dem¬ 
ocratic counties. Not only that, but population is counted 
double in Democratic Mobile over that of the Republican 
counties, Lowndes, Montgomery, Wilcox and Sumter. 
Lowndes, with over half the population of Mobile is only 
allowed two, while Mobile is given six delegates. The same 
apportionment, according to population, which gives Mobile 
six delegates would give Barbour three, instead of two dele¬ 
gates ; Dallas five, instead of four delegates; Hale three, 
instead of two delegates ; Lowndes three, instead of two del¬ 
egates ; Marengo three, instead of two delegates; Montgom¬ 
ery five, instead of four delegates ; Perry three, instead of two 
delegates; Russell three, instead of two delegates; Sumter 
three instead of two delegates; and Wilcox four, instead of 
two delegates. Here, then, are eleven delegates which these 
Republican counties would be entitled to under the same 
basis of apportionment which gives Mobile six. And, as if 
this were not enough, the same bill proposes to allow each 
Congressional District one delegate. Here, then, under their 
proposed Democratic gerrymandei are seven more delegates 
given to the Democracy, and only one to the Republicans. 
Thus, if the people shall vote for the convention, the appor¬ 
tionment is so fixed as that no matter what the Republican 
vote in several counties, the Democracy is bound to have a 
majority of the delegates. And by means of this convention, 
thus packed, they will, if successful, so fix the Representation 


32 


in the General Assembly, as to the Republican counties so as 
to make it impossible for the Republicans ever to carry a 
majority of the General Assembly thereafter. That they 
would remodel the constitution so as to make it as near as 
possible conform to an aristocracy or an oligarchy, wherein 
the few will absolutely control the many, by eliminating there¬ 
from the last vestige of a free Republican constitution, such 
# as Alabama was re-admitted into the Union under, there is 
absolutely no room to doubt. But time would fail us to go 
over in detail all that has been and is proposed to be done in 
the way of partizan legislation by the Democracy of Alabama. 
They are now, and will be until after the 4th of March, on 
their good behavior. After that all that is vindictive and un¬ 
patriotic will doubtless be proposed and rushed through with 
a celerity and disregard of the rights of minorities that, judg¬ 
ing the future by the past, will probably be without precedent 
in any of the Southern States, where revolution, under the 
pretended forms of law, has already been consummated. 

REMEDY. 

But, in view of the foregoing, it may be inquired, what rem¬ 
edy ought to be applied? We answer, briefly, that we would 
ask for the most stringent laws for the protection of all men 
in the equal rights, privileges, and immunities which are 
guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen of the United 
States. What these should be it is needless for us to suggest 
to you. We have clearly shadowed forth the aims and purpo¬ 
ses and acts of the Democratic party of Alabama, and it is for 
you, our Republican Representatives, to secure such legislation 
as may be deemed adequate for present exigencies. But we 
may be pardoned for making one specific suggestion. What¬ 
ever else is done or left undone, we beg you not to adjourn on 
the 4th of next March until you have conferred on the Presi¬ 
dent of the United States the power of suspending the writ of 
habeas corpus whenever, in his opinion, it may become neces¬ 
sary. Permit us to state our reasons for insisting upon this 
course. We have positive information that it is the plan and 
policy of the Democratic leaders in this State to keep the 
General Assembly in session until after the 4th of March next. 
Some of them openly avow it. They say they want to go on 
smoothly until after Congress adjourns, and then they mean 
to make a full disclosure of their unpatriotic purposes. 
Other Democratic leaders, believed to be in the secrets of the 
White League, have declared in private conversation that 
they believe that there will be ivar in this country in less than 


33 


six months. Atod why do they thus give expression to their 
pretended fears? Is it not obvious that that which they pre¬ 
tend to apprehend is precisely that which they intend to en¬ 
deavor to force upon the country ? In 1861, they had their 
secret leagues and vigilance committees all over the South, 
and is it not a well-known fact that they have the same char¬ 
acter of organizations now ? Was it not known to the chief 
of the White League Association at Eufaula, before it had 
been made known by the telegraph in the newspapers, that 
President Grant had interferred with the White League sub¬ 
version of civil Government in Louisiana last September; and 
did not the chief of that White League organization confess, 
in a private conversation with a United States Commissioner 
of the Federal court, then making investigation into distur¬ 
bances at Eufaula, that, but for President Grant’s interference, 
the White Leaguers would have had the State Government of 
Alabama inside of ten days? By the prompt action of the 
President, the overthrow of the Southern State Governments 
was frustrated then. But who believes, in the light of subse¬ 
quent events, that the White Leagurers in all the Southern 
States are not bent on mischief immediately after the adjourn¬ 
ment of the present Congress ? Have we not heard of the uni¬ 
ted action of Southern Governors, which was prematurely dis¬ 
closed and disavowed? And have not missionaries from the 
South, and especially from Louisiana, been sent North and 
West to prepare the Northern mind by the grossest misrepre¬ 
sentations for tliecowp d’etat which we are frank to say we be¬ 
lieve the White Leaguers will inaugurate during the coming 
summer if the President shall not have the power to put down 
this lawless military organization,which is a menace to civil gov¬ 
ernment wherever it exists. They have their representatives,we 
believe, in both branches of the Congress of the United States ; 
and this will be more strikingly demonstrated in the next than 
in the present legislative bodies of the nation. Believe us, it 
was not by accident that Thurman, Gordon, and their asso¬ 
ciates sought to poison the mind of the nation against our 
patriotic President, and the gallant Sheridan, and all the 
Union defenders, on account of his exposure of their treason¬ 
able course in Louisiana. Gordon is reported to have sworn 
that he was offered the chief of the White League Ku-Klux 
in Georgia, and it was doubtless owing to his influence in that 
diabolical organization that he was sent to the Senate in 
preference to men of more talent but less disingenuousness. 
We would not seek to mislead our own friends, but we are 
firm in the belief that unless the President is invested with 
3 


34 


power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in* certain contin¬ 
gencies, that immediately on the adjournment of Congress, in 
March, we shall witness a concerted attempt on the part of all 
Democratic and Southern Governors, together with their 
allies elected to Congress and all over the country, to.produce 
disturbance in Louisiana, which will soon extend to every 
Southern State; and in the event the President should 
attempt to interfere, that they will seek to impeach him for 
not sitting still and allowing the enemies of the Union to 
involve the country in civil war, as was done by the traitor¬ 
ous Buchanan under the influence of the same Democratic 
leaders who are now leading on the movement for civil war, 
unless they are allowed by fraud, violence, and bloodshed to 
control not only the Southern States, but the National Gov¬ 
ernment. 

We are, very respectfully, Republican members of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly of Alabama. 

D. E. Coon, Representative, Dallas county, 

John Bruce, Representative, Wilcox county, 

Chas. S Harris, Representative, Dallas county, 

H. Y. Cashin, Representative, Montgomery county, 
C. Gilmer, Representative, Montgomery county, 
Chas. Smith, Representative, Bullock county, 

A. H. Curtis, Senator, Perry county, 

Ashley C.Wood, Representative, Talladega county, 
James K. Green, Senator, 23d District, 

Loyd Leftwich, Senator, 24th District, 

B. W. Reese, Representative, Hale county, 

W. A. Brantley, Representative, Dallas county, 
W. H. Blevins, Representative, Dallas county, 

J. T. Harris, Representative, Perry county, 

G. S. W. Lewis, Representative, Perry county, 
Jona A. J. Simms, Representative, Talladega co., 
Perry Mathews, Representative, Bullock county' 
Elisah Baldwin, Representative, Wilcox county, 
J ames Bliss, Representative, Sumpter county,* 
Chas. S. Wood, Representative, Marengo county, 
L. A. McDuffie, Representative, Lowndes county, 
Samuel Lee, Representative, Lowndes county, 

W. D. Gaskin, Representative, Lowndes county, 

E. R. Mitchell, Representative, Montgomery co. 
J. A. Earden, Senator, 10th District, 

Robt. Reid, Representative, Sumpter county, 
Granville Bennett, Representative, Sumpter co. 
John W. Dereen, Senator, 26th District, 

Elijah Cook, Representative, Montgomery county, 


35 


W. Merriwether, Representative, Wilcox county, 

C. Fagan, Representative, Montgomery county, 
Jacob Martin, of Dallas county, 

F. W. Allen, of Bullock county, 

D. J. Daniels, of Russell county, 

J. R. Witherspoon, Representative, Green county, 

A. W. Johnson, Representative, Macon county, 
George Patterson, Representative, Macon county, 
Wm. E. Cockrell, Representative, Greene county, 
J. E. Bozeman, Representative, Autauga county, 
W. G. M. Golson, Senator, 18th District, 

W. B. Harris, Senator, 15th District, 

John W. Jones, 20th District, 

B. F. Royal, Senator, 16th District, 

Jerre Haralson, Senator, 21st District, 

Jacob Black, Senator, 17th District, 

M. Boyd, Representative, Perry county, 

W. W. Glass, Senator, 14th District, 

Prince Gardner, of Russell county, 

Maulty Wynn, of Hale county. 

Montgomery, Ala., February 15th, 1875. 

















LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 033 239 145 8 


















\ 

















